 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Aluskak v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9367, No. 5122,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could be sentenced to greater than presumptive term for sexual abuse of minor, without benefit of a jury, because aggravator within Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(8) fell within Blakely exceptions if proof rested on defendant's prior conviction for assault. Proof of single Blakely-compliant aggravating factor was sufficient.
|
|||||
| Clark v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8795, No. 5125,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated because he proceeded without assistance of counsel even though trial court never obtained defendant's knowing waiver of his right; although defendant elected to proceed without counsel, trial court accepted defendant's decision without advising him of the benefits of counsel and the dangers of self-representation.
|
|||||
| Haynes v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8964, No. 5121,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Before absconding, defendant entered plea to third-degree controlled substance misconduct. When apprehended, defendant sought to withdraw plea, pursuant to Alaska R. Crim. P. 11, but motion was properly denied because a motion to dismiss indictment would not have succeeded and attorney was diligent in efforts to communicate with defendant.
|
|||||
| Hugo v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9036, No. 5124,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's parole officer searched defendant for controlled substances without a warrant. Search did not violate Fourth Amendment because a parole search was not required to be premised on a parole officer's reasonable suspicion that defendant had engaged in criminal activity.
|
|||||
| Krug v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9009, No. 5123,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In trial for manufacturing methamphetamine, first-degree burglary, felony theft, and felony criminal mischief, among other charges, evidence was sufficient because circumstantial evidence corroborated co-defendant's testimony. Evidence that defendant "cooked" drug elsewhere was properly admitted under Alaska R. Crim. P. 404(b) to show knowledge.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
